BK
All these things have been discussed at lenth many times. Clusters exist everywhere and are a product
of randomness. It is hard to find a value that is not coming out af a cluster or about to start one. Waves
on an ocean. Playing the lottery is not about math per say, it more about about intuition.
Math can express the lottery in terms of probability and chance can cover almost any outcome so INHO there
is no correct or incorrect way to play. If a person believes that the history has something to do with the next
draw that's Ok with me. I personally don't believe it and think I can show that the next draw is a product of
the matrix. The balls bouncing around inside a hopper is the biggest illusion in a lottery drawing. It does not
matter how the numbers are drawn as long as it is not tainted. While all numbers have the exact same chance
of showing the full set of numbers show very different probabilities based on a number of elements. DM is a
tool that can build sets based on the differentiating of probabilities between combos of 5 number sets. A simple
example of this is a set that has one double odd numbers. 42% of the total possible outcomes of a 5 number
set will have 1 double odd number while only 7% have a chance of forming a 3 double odd number set. Since the
drawing is really just taking a random sample from the matrix then the sets with 1 double odd number have the
greatest probability of showing in any one drawing. All my analysis is based on the matrix and treating the draw
history the same way a I would treat a series of random samples. I expect the drawings to follow the possible
outcomes in proportion. This gives me an avantage in the sets I play because they are built to cover the largest
body of sets within the matrix. If you I played only sets that have 1 double odd numbers then I will be correct more
often than if I play sets with 3 double odd. Using many such values to reduce sets is the most effective method I
have ever found. Since I treat the past results in the same manner I would a series of random samples and given
the fact that based on the populations within the matrix are known then I can somewhat predict or better said put
myself in a better position than I would get using QP's. QP's win a large percent of the prizes but when you consider
the number of QP's sales they loose there luster. If my methods suffer from some fallacy then so what, Provide a
method that does better and I will change the way I play. There are ways to use the history of a game which should
not be considered fallacies and that includes treating it as a series of random samples.
RL